Commentary on pro-family issues in the media, politics and in the public square.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Former 60s radical discusses Leftist ideology motivating Obama and others in his Administration.

In a powerful interview, David Horowitz, a former 60s radical talks about what's at stake with President Obama and others in and around his Administration who are children of the Left and are pushing for an aggressive expansion of government. It's a powerful interview because he highlights from personal experience where the left wants to go and how they're using the Obama Administration to get there.

Horowitz points out that the radical Left is ultimately about power so they can do what they want in society, regardless of the consequences.

Horowitz, whose parents were card carrying members of the Communist Party and was himself a 60s radical, points out that the Left really doesn't care about the outcome of what they are proposing. Whether it's health care or whatever they want to impose their ideologically driven vision for society without concern for the actual consequences of their policies.

Horowitz points to the Left's designs during the Vietnam war. They used the Vietnamese and Cambodian people as a shield, rationale for ending the war and opposing American policies in general. Of course, an outcome of the debacle in Vietnam was the mass murder of millions of Cambodians and Vietnamese people at the hands of the Communists. The Left was absolutely silent about the resulting slaughter.

Again what's underlying the Left and the conflict in our society are differing worldviews. The Left's philosophy emanates from Rousseau and others who believed their savior is not Christ but the State. The State would provide them with freedom and salvation from the oppressive social conventions of family, church and community associations. By giving their allegiance and power to the state, people would be free to become whatever they wanted. Of course, this is the big lie. The outworking of Rousseau's ideas, as expressed through Marxism and Communist practices, led to the murder of over a hundred million people during the 20th Century.

Rousseau's and the modern American Left's view of man is fundamentally flawed. That man is basically good and the reason for suffering and evil in society are the oppressive social conventions and institutions in society not something inherent in man. For Marx, who grounded everything in economics, it was the oppressive bourgeoisie.

In the West and America, the "soft despotism" of the Left seeks to expand government control and regulation into every area of life, e.g. health care, education, welfare, and so on. The result is not a happier, healthy society with more freedom but one worse off across the board. That's the trajectory Obama and his Administration have us on.

1 comment:

The fact is that George W. Bush has presided over the largest expansion of government since Lyndon Johnson, who was no piker. Spending under Bush doubled the national debt to $10 trillion (which doesn’t count such things as the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare). His veto pen was not to be seen for most of his administration. All kinds of spending soared, including domestic discretionary spending. “Entitlements” are out of control, helped along by Bush’s prescription-drug add-on to Medicare. Of course his occupation of Iraq costs $10 billion month, not to mention the billions being sunk into the bottomless Afghan hole. Overall, military spending, most of which has nothing to do with true defense, dwarfs what the rest of the world spends.

And that isn’t all. One of Bush’s proudest achievements (Not mine for Him to say the least) was the further centralization of education with the No Child Left Behind Act. Republicans used to promise abolition of the Department of Education, but that idea has long been trashed. Same with abolition of the Department of Energy. Anyone who supports those departments can make no claim to favoring free markets.

It should go without saying that Bush’s myriad taxpayer bailouts of investment bankers and automakers are further proof that he has no commitment to limited government.

Bush has also presided over a dramatic and ominous expansion of executive power in the name of national security. On the basis of a novel legal theory, his administration claims that the Constitution delegates all sorts of implied autocratic powers that may not be checked by the other two branches of government. They include everything from the authority to wiretap without warrant, to setting up secret CIA prisons, to sending detainees to foreign countries for torture, to holding “unlawful enemy combatants” forever — subject to torture — without charge or right of habeas corpus. Bush has also repeatedly signed bills into law with caveats (signing statements) that he refused to enforce the parts that limited his power. This non-veto veto is just another way to get around the Constitution. A veto can be overridden by Congress; a signing statement cannot be.

The level of power induced situations such as taking away hapes corpus leaves you with no leg to stand on for the idea that the "lefties" are trying to take over the world.

Obama has control of his own reigns, unlike Bush and allowing his administration lead him around, at times, without even having the info infront of him or the people of the nation! (which is called lieing and is a criminal act)